A high-profile op-ed published by a University of California, Berkeley mathematics professor—arguing that college students are increasingly entering university without foundational math skills—was crafted with the assistance of artificial intelligence. Zvezdelina Stankova, a professor of mathematics at the institution, authored a widely read 2,000-word opinion piece for the San Francisco Standard that sparked intense debate over academic standards. However, student journalists at Berkeley’s campus newspaper, The Daily Californian, ran the text through an AI-detection service called Pangram, revealing that approximately 33% of the draft was flagged as AI-generated or AI-assisted writing.
While Stankova’s essay criticized declining student preparation—blaming the shift away from standardized entrance exams—the revelation that generative technology touched the critique itself has drawn sharp scrutiny from faculty peers.
The Op-Ed, Standardized Testing, and AI Assistance
In her viral commentary, Stankova contended that she is routinely forced to instruct university-level students who struggle with middle-school concepts such as fractions and basic algebra. She directly tied these gaps to the University of California system’s decision to drop admissions exams like the SAT and ACT. Following pandemic-era disruptions and equity concerns, testing was made optional in 2020, and a subsequent court ruling mandated that the UC system remain test-blind through 2025.
Stankova was among thousands of faculty members who signed open letters earlier this year advocating for the reinstatement of standardized testing in admissions. According to a joint statement from professors, those open-letter campaigns also utilized artificial intelligence during the editing process.
Faced with the findings from Pangram, Stankova confirmed to student reporters that AI tools were indeed integrated into her writing workflow. She explained that the piece was refined over a three-week period involving a faculty team and several journalists who held multiple meetings and drafted successive iterations. “The faculty team and a number of journalists worked intensively on my draft over a period of three weeks with multiple drafts, meetings,” Stankova stated, adding that while AI assisted with editing and locating background research, the project involved “several hundred person-hours of intensive human work and deliberation, of which about 80 hours are my own.”
Academic Debate and Ethical Questions
The integration of technology into an essay warning against technological reliance and compromised fundamental skills has prompted varied reactions across the academic community. Critics have pointed out the irony of using automated assistance to critique modern educational shortcomings. Meanwhile, others argue that utilizing editing software does not inherently invalidate the underlying arguments concerning student preparedness.
Weighing in on the campus discourse, UC Berkeley professor Hannes Bajohr told The Daily Californian that the practice carries optics challenges. “At the moment, this seems like deception. Or it seems like something that is at least dishonest to a certain reason,” Bajohr said, explaining that an individual op-ed relies heavily on the author personally underwriting every stated sentiment. At the same time, Bajohr acknowledged that societal norms surrounding writing assistance tools are shifting rapidly.
Looking Ahead
The controversy unfolds as the UC academic senate reviews whether standardized tests should make a permanent return to undergraduate admissions processes. University officials indicate that any potential revisions to admissions policy would take effect no earlier than the 2028 admissions cycle.
What are your thoughts on using AI for editing opinion pieces in academia? Share your perspective in the comments below and share this article to keep the conversation going.
